Pining For Clintonism?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:49:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Glenn Reynolds, this Matt Welch piece from the libertarian Reason magazine gave me a chuckle:

The Death of Neoliberalism Pro-market Democrats disappeared just when we needed them most.

[. . .] I come here not to mourn Bill Clinton, nor to give him sole credit for accomplishments that would not have happened without a hostile Republican Congress, but rather to lament the mostly unremarked passing of the political movement that made his economic successes possible. [. . .] Come back, 1990s. All is forgiven.

Freaking hilarious. Is Reason magazine calling for the return of the Clinton tax plan of 1993? The one that raised the taxes of the rich and lowered it for the working poor? The funny thing is too many Dems, in their drive to demonize Hillary Clinton, forgot that Bill Clinton was the last President to raise taxes on the rich and lower them for the working poor. And apparently that amnesia spread to the libertarians at Reason. Too funny.

Speaking for me only

< Blagojevich Jury: Uninimous on Two Counts, Divided on Rest | The Perils Of Being A Latino Republican: Rubio Can't Reject Latest GOP Anti-Latino Proposal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pining For Clintonism? | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

the one that passed without (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:52:57 PM EST

one single republican vote? that plan?

Stop (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:54:25 PM EST

You are so bad :)


The very one (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:54:46 PM EST

The one that Al Gore cast the tiebreaking vote on.

The one that does not count as a "progressive achievement."


ah (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:04:42 PM EST

the goodbye Margie, that was Newt screaming across the floor of the house, plan that resulted in Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and several others losing their seats.

I remember it well.


: Lose a seat, gain a daughter-in-law. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by steviez314 on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:00:18 PM EST

But, but, but.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by NYShooter on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:03:24 PM EST

Had he "reached across the aisle" and shown the Republicans a little respect I'm sure at least 20-30 R's would've voted for his bill, and the bitter partisanship he introduced into the process would've been just a fleeting memory.

I sure hope future Presidents learn a lesson from Clinton's debacle.


the results (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:09:04 PM EST

so far are not that encouraging.


: what, the PPUS (none / 0) (#15)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:14:49 PM EST

isn't a success? What about Presidents Snowe and Collins? President Nelson? Heck, look at the growth of presidents we have! Surely 10-15 is better than just one.

Nah... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by kdog on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:05:49 PM EST

They're calling for more repeal of financial regs that put a damper on the Wall St. money orgy...the kickback for the tax hikes.

It's too bad (none / 0) (#9)
by jtaylorr on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:52:04 PM EST

there's not a way to repeal Glass-Steagall twice!


That's right, Dawg (none / 0) (#12)
by scribe on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:03:51 PM EST

They want something to create a new bubble so they can have some fun again.

That, and I'm sure they lovvved the 1995 amendments to the Securities Acts, which pretty much ended anything resembling accountability-through-private-litigation in the markets.


: Of course (none / 0) (#27)
by Rojas on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 07:10:45 AM EST

The structural fissure that created Enron and the accounting fraud that accompanied their rise would not have developed had we just toyed with marginal rates a bit more....
It's a brave new world.

Nope. All is not forgiven. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:06:29 PM EST

Too many Dems, in their drive to demonize Hillary Clinton, forgot that Bill Clinton was the last President to raise taxes on the rich and lower them for the working poor.

Amnesia also (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:27:43 PM EST

meant forgetting that the economy prospered, despite tougher taxes on the rich!


: That little Internet Bubble was a big help. (none / 0) (#25)
by BTAL on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:31:00 PM EST

When so many "instant" millionaires that gained that status from complete BS IPOs, they had no problem paying any tax rate with their new found "funny money".

This non-Elephant will also never forget ... (3.50 / 4) (#19)
by Ellie on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:35:11 PM EST

... the haste of Dems to exploit HRC's service during two terms as First Lady -- to fraudulently make her "responsible" for the Clinton admins' policy those Dems didn't particularly like -- as an excuse to bash her Senatorial record and candidacy for Pres.

It's the corollary to What BTD Said.

There's no way we'd see the equivalent: both the recently ousted and current FL(s)OTUS being held accountable for presidential and party policies.

Hell, Dem weasels under their current lame-ass "leadership" still pretend that if Brave Leader only comes out from under the Oval Office desk for catalogue shoots, his gleaming image will always be good to go when the applause sign goes off.

Mmmm-hmmmm, it'll look clean and fresh for 2012. And Gibbs acted alone during that moronic sniper attack on Libs. There was no second d0uchebag.

(I'm speaking totally out of turn here and I don't want to be a clutterbuck: no fight in this dog; no dog in this fight. No clapping from me, and no 2010 participation either. I'm Indie, I'm Outtie.)


: In other words.. (none / 0) (#30)
by jondee on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:45:25 PM EST

she had all that vast and varied "experience", but bears no responsibility whatsoever for anything that occurred during the time when she accrued it. And besides, New York State is more grateful than Senator Springboard will ever know for all those Wal-Mart Superstores..
And the hits from neo-liberal economic policies embraced by the leaders of the party of "working people" just keep right on coming up to the present day..

Obama Amnesia (none / 0) (#22)
by norris morris on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:12:54 PM EST

Democrats among others spent so much time demonizing Hillary Clinton that they forgot Bill raised taxes on the wealthy, and lowered them for workers on the bottom rungs of the economy.

The throngs of so called liberals,progressives,independents,were so caught up in the hero worship of untested Senator Obama whose limited experience obliterated their collective memories of the positive effects of Clinton leadership.

Hillary was brutalized every day during the campaign by those with the naive expectations of a totally inexperienced young senator who they believed could suddenly deliver Nirvana.

We forget. Now we listen to Gibbs et al telling us that liberals are "professional liberals" and ungrateful swine because they DARE to criticize or question some of the questionable policies
from Obama that don't differ very much from Bush's on a number of really important issues issues. Yes and they dare to suggest that the economy and job creation programs should have come first and foremost.

Both Rham and Gibbs speak for the President in letting us know how much contempt he holds for liberals, and in fact they can go to hell and he doesn't need their votes. So there.

I don't think this group of amateurs realize how many votes Obama can lose with this sorry attitude. BTW, just exactly "where" are all the Proffesional Liberals lurking? Are they all in a group called "professional liberals"???

This kind of political trash talk and ignorance from the President's press chief does not leave me reassured that the WHouse knows what it's doing. Gibbs has a tin ear and whines about poor Obama and all the greatness he has bestowed.

HELP!


From this (the other) side of the aisle (none / 0) (#24)
by BTAL on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:29:25 PM EST

we would have been far more accepting of a HCR POTUS. We would not have liked loosing, but we knew where she was coming from. She shoots straight regardless if we think she is aiming at the wrong targets.

IMHO, some things would not have changed whether it was McCain, Clinton or Obama sitting in the WH. Such as:

GITMO. Same as it is now.
IRAQ. Same as now since BHO is just following the GWB negotiated SOFA agreement.
Afghanistan. Maybe a surge, its a toss up.
HCR. Even Hillary wouldn't have made such a screw up as what we now have.
JOBS. A stimulus would probably have been passed with either of the other two, but with less special interest and election paybacks that did nothing to help solve the problem.

The list (albeit speculative) could go on.


Fact Is (none / 0) (#28)
by cal1942 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:14:28 AM EST

These guys aren't very bright.


And then there's (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by BobTinKY on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:40:18 PM EST

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several federal taxes in the United States.

Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.
|
|
|
It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It has always warmed my heart to know my income is being taxed at higher rates than the income of the idle rich sitting poolside on the phone with hir/her broker. I suppose that is to discourage people like me from getting up and going to work and incentivize us to be born wealthy.

Amen... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by kdog on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:27:29 PM EST

a long standing taxation injustice...capital gains should be taxed like all other forms of gambling, cuz thats what "investing" is.


But, what if such gains are in lieu of (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:09:11 PM EST

Social Security?


: What difference does that make?.... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:26:47 PM EST

You wanna retire on gambling winnings, more power to ya...but pay the same rate as a legitimate gambler.
Or better yet, lets just lower the gambling rate to equal capital gains...it's pretty high.

I recall Clinton saying that when times (none / 0) (#20)
by hairspray on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:01:32 PM EST

were good there was no reason not to reduce taxes. The GOP was livid about his tax increases in 1994, but when times were rolling he was okay with them. Capital gains are often lowered when there is a compelling reason for people to sell and what was the underlying reduction of capital gains?


Can't find any evidence that Clinton (none / 0) (#21)
by hairspray on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:07:26 PM EST

lowered the CGtaxes to 15%. From 28-20% in 1999-2000. Bush lowered the capital gains to 15%.


: Correct (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by cal1942 on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:20:37 AM EST

Lowering from 28 to 20 was bad enough but, Bush 'compromised' on 15 after proposing total elimination.
Boundless greed.

Excellent reminder. I hope (none / 0) (#7)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:35:50 PM EST

and pray that the current crop in the WH, especially those who worked in the Clinton administration, pay attention.

But for some reason I doubt it...

: Pining for a repeal of Taft Hartley (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jondee on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:05:25 PM EST

and a time when Wal-Mart wasn't the biggest employer in the U.S..
A few (bullet proof) prominent, neo-IWW types starting their own Tea Party groundswell here would be just what the doctor ordered as well.

Time For An Obama Scandal (none / 0) (#26)
by lilburro on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:47:16 PM EST

is the lesson I got from the Reason article. Bill Clinton's sex scandal was the reason that progressives got back on his side. Therefore, Obama should get himself into a sexual scrape.

Actually though, I think the trick is to illuminate how ridiculous the Republicans are. The birther crap is just that, crap, as are many of the policy oriented accusations. When will Obama show the country how stupid the GOP is? The scandal of stupidity is already happening, it just seems like the Obama Administration is turning a blind eye to it. TPM is dominated by coverage of GOP stupidity. Why not get into a fight with them and force America to choose sides...are we really so dumb that we wouldn't choose Obama's?